So this also proves that, ultimately, this list of passwords was not properly hashed.
People jump up and down and scream that SHA1 and MD5 are broken, but if properly used, they still offer significant password security. One trick is to use salts when storing passwords in the database.
salt: '2010-11-16T08:39:05Z - some_random_string$#@!'
password-hash (md5): 14e80778512f578a5fe263abe4b58e9c
that increased the amount of time required to brute-force the password significantly. Also, the use of a database of hashes is largely worthless since each password in the list would have a completely unique hash. for the sake of brute-forcing the data, short passwords don't matter (on the other hand, brute-forcing login to the application is not affected). Having a different salt for each password makes the time spent on each other password completely worthless once the cracker gets to the next item in the list.
to improve that, we can say... hash the result 1000 times in a row. For someone trying to brute force the hash, they would spend 1000x the CPU resources creating the hash. It's mostly not a big deal to run that hash 1000 times when creating the information for the database or authenticating the user.
of course, SHA1 and MD5 are still broken when it comes to file integrity checking (when it comes to tampering) since there are documented collisions. For this case, cryptographic signatures are where it's at. You can guarantee that not only was the file not tampered with, but also that the person who supplied the signature was who they say they were. Gotta love public key encryption.